Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/08/45

Medamoni Eeramma W/o Balaiah O/c House hold - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Wanaparthy. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri V. Amarnath Reddy

26 Sep 2008

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday the 26th day of September, 2008    

 

                                                              Present:- Sri M.Rama Rao, B.A.,LL.B., President

     Sri P.Venkateshwara Rao, B.com., LL.B., Member

       Smt.B.Vijaya Kumari, M.Sc. B.Ed., C.C.P., Member

 

                                                                           C.C.NO. 45  Of   2008

Between:- 

 

Medamoni Eeramma, W/o Balaiah, Aged: 60 years, Occ: Household,                R/o Chimanaguntapally village, Wanaparthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar.  

 

                                                                                              … Complainant.

And

1. The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Vallabh Nagar, Wanaparthy.

2. The Zonal Manager, L.I.C., Jeevan Bhagya, South Central Zone,

    Opp: Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

 

                                                                                       … Opposite Parties

 

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 18-09-2008,  in the presence of Sri V. Amarnath Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and of Sri Lakshmi Kantha Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:  

O R D E R

 

(Sri P.Venkateshwara Rao, Member)

1.     This is a complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest to the complainant and also pay compensation and costs of the complaint. 

 

2.      The complaint averments are as follows:-   The son of the complainant by name M. Suresh had Abhaya Gold Account with Andhra Bank, i.e., opposite party No.1 bearing No.801139.   The Abhaya Gold Account holders are covered by L.I.C. of India, i.e., opposite party No.2 under Personal Accident Policy for Rs.2,00,000/-.   The complainant is the nominee to the said account.   The insured M. Suresh died in road accident on 16.5.2006 at Laknaram village.  The concerned Police registered a case in Cr.No.178 of 2006 and investigated the matter and filed final report.   Being a nominee the complainant made application on 14.6.2006 along with necessary documents viz., FIR, Inquest, PME Report, Final Report etc.   The complainant several times approached OPs and asked for settlement of claim but in vain.  The complainant also got issued legal notice on 5.5.2008 to the opposite party No.1 calling upon to arrange the payment.    But the opposite parties failed to do so.   This inaction of OP.1 amounts to deficiency of service.   Therefore the complainant is entitled for the sum assured apart from costs and compensation.  Hence the complaint. 

 

3.     The opposite party No.1 filed counter with the following averments:-  It is true that the son of the complainant by name M. Suresh is having a A.B. Jeevan Abhaya Savings A/c bearing No.801139 with OP.1.   The opposite party No.1 is having tie up with OP.2.    The opposite party No.1 will credit the premium amount from the concerned account and in case of accidental death of the account holder, the nominee of the account will get Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant has not made any application/intimation to OP.1, hence OP.1 is unaware about the death and police case.    The complainant never approached OP.1.  Surprisingly on 5.5.2008, OP.1 received the legal notice got issued by the complainant.  The said notice was sent to AGM, Kurnool for preparing reply.   Meanwhile the complainant filed complaint before the Forum.   According to the terms and conditions of the A.B. Jeevan Abhaya, if the account holder died accidentally the said information shall be submitted within three months to OP.2 in writing duly enclosing necessary documentary proof of the incident.  But in this case, the complainant did not inform the death of M. Suresh till the legal notice dated 5.5.2008 is issued.  Hence no claim petition is submitted in time and the claim is lost by lapse of time and now no claim petition can be filed by the complainant in this regard.   Hence the question of payment of amount of Rs.2,00,000/- does not arise.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.1 and there is also no illegality or negligent act on the part of OP.1.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against OP.1.      

 

4.    The opposite party No.2 filed counter with the following averments:-  It is true that OP.1 is having tie up with OP.2 by virtue of MoU.  The account holder of A.B. Jeevan Abhaya will get personal insurance benefit for accidental death as per MoU.  The opposite party No.1 has to pay the premium to OP.2 by deducting the same from the concerned account.  In case of natural death the nominee of the account holder will get Rs.1,00,000/- and whereas in the case of death due to accident the nominee will get Rs.2,00,000/-.   It is not aware by the opposite parties that the son of complainant was having A.B. Jeevan Abhaya account with OP.1 vide A/c No. ABJ 801139.  It is also not known by the OP about the accidental death of the account holder and police case.  The opposite party No.2 has not received any claim or intimation either from the complainant or from OP.1 about the death of the son of the complainant and claim form at any point of time.   It is learnt only after receiving the notice from the District Forum.   According to the MoU and terms of the said A.B. Jeevan Abhaya, if the account holder died accidentally the said information in writing with complete documentary proof of the incident shall be submitted within 90 days to the concerned bank (OP.1) and the same should be submitted to OP.2 within 180 days by OP.1.  The opposite party No.2 has not received any claim either from the complainant or from OP.1.    Now the question of submitting claim form does not arise.  Therefore the claim of the complainant is time barred and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.2 and the complainant is not entitled for any amount and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

 

5.   The complainant filed his affidavit and adduced the evidence of C.W.2   

  by filing affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8.

 

6.   The opposite parties filed their respective affidavits and got marked  

  Exs.B-1 to B-7 on behalf of OP.1 and Ex.B-8 on behalf of OP.2.     

 

7.   Heard the arguments of the Advocates of both side. 

 

8.   The point which falls for consideration is whether the complainant is   

  entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

 

9.   Facts which are not in dispute:-  The son of the complainant had the A.B. Jeevan Abhaya Savings Bank A/c with OP.1.  This account covers the risk of accidental death of the account holder.  OP.1 is having tie up with OP.2 for covering risk by virtue of MOU.  It is the duty of OP.1 banker to deduct the premium from the concerned account and to pay the same to OP.2 Insurance Company.  The complainant got issued legal notice to OP.1 and the same is served but not replied the same. The complainant is the nominee to the subject Abhaya Jeevan Savings Bank A/c bearing No.801139 pertaining to his son by name M. Suresh.                                
10. The case of the complainant is that her son is the A.B. Jeevan Abhaya account holder of OP.1 bank.  This policy covers the risk of accidental death to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The account holder died accidentally on 16.5.2006.   The police registered a case and filed final report stating that the account holder died accidentally.  Being a nominee she applied for settlement of claim to OP.1 but OPs failed to settle the claim inspite of several visits to OPs’ offices and got issued legal notice.  Thus OPs have rendered services in deficit. 

 

   On the other hand, the common contention of OP.1 and OP.2 is that they do not know about the death of the account holder.  According to the terms and conditions of the MOU of OP.1 and OP.2 and the policy, the nominee of account should inform about the death of the account holder in writing to OP.1 and also submit claim within 90 days of its occurrence along with proper proof of documentary evidence.  But the complainant violated the said condition and not informed about the death of the account holder within 90 days to OPs.   Therefore the claim is time barred and now the question of submitting the claim does not arise.  Therefore there is no deficiency of service and the complainant is not entitled for the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- due to time barred claim.    

 

11. Firstly it has to be seen whether the complainant has proved her contentions.  She relied upon Exs.A-1 to A-8 to prove her case.   The    Ex.A-3 is the FIR.  The Ex.A-4 is Inquest Report.  The Ex.A-5 is PME Report.  The Ex.A-6 is the Final Report filed by the police.  All these documents prove that the death of the account holder is accidental one.   The police filed their Final Report vide Ex.A-6 stating that “This is a clear case of accident and no foul play was found in this case.  During the examination no one witness shown suspicious over the death of deceased.  Therefore I am herewith submitting the Final Report as Accidental Death”.  It is also not the case of OPs that the account holder’s death was not accidental one.   Therefore we hold that the death of the account holder by name M. Suresh is accidental one.    

 

12. The opposite parties have taken the only plea for repudiating the claim is that inspite of clear condition mentioned under Ex.B-7 and B-8, the complainant has violated the same by not informing the death of the account holder within 90 days as required to claim the amount.  Ex.B-7 is the xerox copy of Guidelines to be implemented by branches of the Andhra Bank.  These guidelines are issued by the Head Office of  OP.1.  The Ex.B-8 is the MOU agreement said to have been entered into by the OP.1 and OP.2.   There is a clause in these documents which reveals that intimation of death to be given to bank branch within 90 days and the duly filled in claim form along with the documents is to be submitted to the P & Gs unit of OP.2 within 180 days through the respective Andhra Bank branch.   

 

13.   The learned counsel for the complainant argued that both the  Exs.B-7 and B-8 are pertaining to OPs and there is no such condition in the A.B. Jeevan Abhaya account opening form and OPs never informed about the said condition and the account holder or the complainant is not the party to the Exs.B-7 and B-8.  Therefore the said condition is not binding on the account holder as well as the nominee.  Further he argued that even otherwise also the complainant has informed the death of the account holder within one month of the death of the account holder to OP.1 vide Ex.A-2.  The Ex.A-2 is the Xerox copy of intimation letter addressed to OP.1 by the complainant.  Hence the repudiation is arbitrary.   The learned counsel for OPs vehemently contended that there is no proof on record to show that the Ex.A-2 was served on OP.1.   Therefore the Ex.A-2 cannot be considerable under law.  In rebuttal the counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant is an illiterate and thumb impressionist and she does not know the procedure and it is quite natural and also in practice that the claimants/applicants will hand over their representation to the officers directly in person and in most of the cases they would not insist for the acknowledgement and the officers are also not particular and knowingly they do not issue any acknowledgement for such petitions and in the case on hand also OPs did not issue any acknowledgements.   He further drawn our attention on Ex.B-1 i.e., xerox copy of claim form and argued that it categorically proves that OP.1 forwarded it to OP.2 with a positive recommendation to settle the claim.  If really there was a delay in intimating the death or OP.1 would not have received the Ex.A-2, the burden lies on OP.1 to show that why he has not rejected or returned the claim as a time barred and against the terms and how he has recommended for settlement of claim.  But OP.1 failed to do so. Therefore it is clear evident that the complainant has submitted the Ex.A-2 within one month of the death of the account holder to OP.1.   Further the counsel for the complainant argued that no policy clause limits the limitations to submit the claim and when there is no clear mentioning of such condition in the pass book or in the account opening form the OPs cannot repudiate the claim basing on such documents.    Counsel relied upon the decision of Hon’ble A.P. State Commission in V. Lakshmikantha Vs. Branch Manager, Andhra Bank Ltd., and others reported in CPJ 2000 (2) Page 70 and the decision of Delhi State Commission reported in CPJ 1995 (1), Page 439 and the decision of Himachal Pradesh State Commission reported in CPR 2007 (3) Page 74, in support of his case.      

 

14.  We have gone through all the documents relied by both the parties.  We observed that the A.B. Jeevan Abhaya account holders including  M. Suresh the account holder herein, are not the parties to the Ex.B-7 and B-8 and these documents are executed and circulated among OPs by the concerned.  There is no material placed on record to show that the conditions under Ex.B-7 and B-8 were informed to the account holder.  The Account opening Form filed by OP.1 marked as Ex.B3 and Ex.A-1 Pass Book also silent with regard to the time limit in informing the death of the account holder and submission of claim.  The Ex.B-1 proves that OP.1 has forwarded the claim to OP.2 with a recommendation to settle the claim and not discussed anything about the delay in submitting the claim.   The Ex.A-2 reveals that the complainant has informed OP.1 about the death of the account holder within one month.  With regard to the proof of submission of Ex.A-2 we are inclined to agree with the same opinion as expressed by the learned counsel for the complainant.  Therefore it is clear that OPs never informed the account holder about the clause that the nominee should inform about the death of the account holder within 90 days of his death.  There the deceased M. Suresh is not the party to the Ex.B-7 and B-8.  Therefore we hold that the complainant cannot be made suffer on account of the time limit in submitting the claim.   The various decisions referred by the counsel for the complainant are quite applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

 

    We further rely on the latest decision of the Hon’ble A.P. State Commission passed in the very similar case under appeal in F.A.No.910 of 2005 against C.D.No.269 of 2003 of this District Forum (Unreported decision).  Their lordships held that “We rely on the judgment of the National Commission in 2000 NCJ (NC) 406 wherein it was held by the National Commission that “merely because the claim is not made within the stipulated period it is not void”.   

 

     In light of the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the action of OPs in repudiating the claim as a time barred claim is not justified and further we are of the opinion that the acts of OPs amount to deficiency of service.   Therefore we hold that the complainant is rightly entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- in terms of the conditions of A.B. Jeevan Abhaya account. 

 

15. Now coming to the point of fixing the liability that which OP has to pay the amount.  According to the MoU under Ex.B-8 and also as admitted by OP.1 and OP.2, the opposite party No.1 banker is only a facilitator.  The Hon’ble A.P. State Commission in the above referred F.A.No.910 of 2005 also held that being a facilitator the bank is not to be held liable.   The Insurance Company is alone liable to pay the claim amount.  In view of the above referred decision, facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the Insurance Company i.e., OP.2 herein is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant.   

 

16.   Now with regard to the quantum of compensation we feel that OPs repudiated the claim on whimsy grounds and not justified in repudiating the claim.  As such they are liable to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of recommendation of OP.1 under Ex.B-1 i.e., 17.9.2007.  The complainant is not entitled any separate lumpsum amount as compensation as we have already awarded interest on the claim amount.  However the complainant is entitled for the costs of the proceedings because of the reason that the acts of OPs led the complainant to approach this Forum.    

 

17. In the result, the complaint is allowed.  OP.No.2 is directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/-  together with interest @ 6% p.a. thereon from 17-9-2007 till date of payment and also to pay Rs.500/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  The complaint against OP.No.1 is dismissed without costs.

 

   Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 26^th day of September, 2008.           

 

        

 MEMBER                                MEMBER                              PRESIDENT 

 

 

Appendix of evidence

       Witness examined

 

For complainant: Nil                                                 For opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked for Complainant:-

 

Ex.A-1:        Xerox copy of Account Pass Book.

Ex.A-2:        Xerox copy of claim application, dt.14.6.2006.

Ex.A-3:        Attested copy of FIR, dt.17.5.2006.

Ex.A-4:        Attested copy of Inquest, dt.17.5.2006.

Ex.A-5:        Attested copy of Post Mortem Examination, dt.17.5.2006.

Ex.A-6:        Attested copy of Final Report.

Ex.A-7:        Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.5.5.2008.

Ex.A-8:        Postal acknowledgement. 

 

Exhibits marked for OP No.1:-

 

Ex.B-1:        Claim Application Form, dt.17.9.2007.

Ex.B-2:        Declaration of the Nominee.

Ex.B-3:        Account Opening Form, dt.18.4.2005.

Ex.B-4:        Xerox copy of Driving License. 

Ex.B-5:        Health declaration of Account holder.

Ex.B-6:        Xerox copy of A/c Pass Book.

Ex.B-7:        Terms and Conditions of AB Jeevan Abhaya Savings Bank A/c.

 

Exhibits marked for OP No.2:-

Ex.B-8:        Memorandum of Understanding.

 

By the Forum:

  

  - Nil-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            PRESIDENT

 

Copy to:-

 

1. Sri V. Amarnath Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.
2. Sri Lakshmi Kantha Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties.